beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 22, 2016 to December 13, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The status of the parties is a person who produces and sells a ionerererer, waterway lighting, ice lighting, etc. with the trade name of “D” (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”).
Defendant B entered the Plaintiff Company on February 2008 and served as an agent for the business division on November 28, 2014.
Defendant C is a person who was employed in the Plaintiff Company on November 2005 and worked as the director of the division of the business division, and retired on December 4, 2014.
B. Defendant B’s technical drawings and the list of customers, etc. 1) retired from the Plaintiff Company on November 24, 2014 for reference in the work of the Plaintiff Company’s resignation, Defendant B connected the Plaintiff Company’s NAS server technical specifications at the Plaintiff Company’s office to the E-mail for business use, and stored and stored 20GB volume files containing files in the separate sheet in the external hard disc. 2) The Plaintiff demanded the return of the data that were taken out after being aware of Defendant B’s act of taking the files, and the Defendant B returned the external hard disc where the files were stored to the Fbub, an employee of the Plaintiff Company.
C. The Defendants, which constituted E, established the Plaintiff Company on November 25, 2014, which was around the time of the retirement of the Plaintiff Company, and registered as E with the trade name “E”, which was the time of the Plaintiff Company’s retirement.
1) A criminal case against the Defendants was conducted by the investigative agency by submitting a petition that the Plaintiff wants to punish the Defendants against the Defendants. The investigative agency seized the computer hard disks, USB, documents, etc. in the Defendants’ office and the e-mail account of Defendant C. The said seized articles were discovered. 2) On September 25, 2015, the prosecutor indicted Defendant B as a crime of occupational breach of trust and was below the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act in Defendant B.